These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Providing on-site diagnosis of malignancy on endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates: should it be done?
    Author: Jhala NC, Eltoum IA, Eloubeidi MA, Meara R, Chhieng DC, Crowe DR, Jhala D.
    Journal: Ann Diagn Pathol; 2007 Jun; 11(3):176-81. PubMed ID: 17498591.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Rapid and accurate tissue diagnosis for a deep-seated malignancy would allow treating physicians to provide disease-specific interventions and help patients make early informed management decisions. Providing on-site tissue diagnosis for fine-needle aspirate samples obtained with endosonography would help develop such efficient patient management issues. Here we report our experience of prospectively providing on-site diagnosis on 485 endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspirate samples. METHODS: Four hundred eighty-five endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspirates from the pancreas (n= 305), lymph nodes (n = 91), biliary tree (n = 47), liver (n = 15), gastrointestinal tract (n = 19), and adrenal gland (n = 8) were reviewed. For all aspirates, the cytologic diagnoses, both preliminary and final, were categorized into the following: positive for malignancy, positive for neoplastic process, suspicious for malignancy, atypical cells, reactive process, and nondiagnostic. RESULTS: Of the 485 cases, 163 (33.6%) were diagnosed as benign, 43 (8.8%) as atypical, 21 (4.3%) as suspicious, 18 (3.7%) as positive for neoplasm, and 230 (47.4%) as malignant after final cytologic interpretation. A significantly (P < .001) higher degree of concordance was noted for unequivocal diagnosis of malignancy (196/198, 98.9%) vs nonmalignancy (200/250, 67.2%) between on-site and final cytologic diagnosis. Of the 52 discordant cases, 12 (2.6%) diagnoses were downgraded and 40 (8.9%) were upgraded from preliminary on-site diagnosis. Our overall sensitivity (87 vs 92), specificity (95% vs 100%), and accuracy (90% vs 94%) improved for final cytologic diagnosis. CONCLUSION: On-site diagnosis of malignancy could be used to initiate informed patient management decisions. Cases where a diagnosis of malignancy is not rendered at on-site interpretation need further cytologic evaluation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]